Possible 2011 WCA Regulations Changes

[Holger]

..., then all the good cubers will insist that each competition has those events. And this would be even more constraining for organizers, because they generally want to do the events that people will enjoy the most. (What is "Hutelihut"?)

I agree, and therefor if we have to have an event like this the number should reflect two things
1. There should be events enough to make it a good way to measure overall cubing skill.
2. There should not be so many events, that it would be a major problem for the organizers

I don't see this as a major obstacle, maybe because I have only been to competitions in the northern Europe.

I don't think I like the idea of adding a new event if we expect it will be much easier to compete in it in Europe than in other places.
For a while I think

I think we should judge the event by several parameters:
1. Is it a good/fun event
2. Would people compete in it
3. Is it possible for organizers to hold the event

If an event lives up to these three parameters, i would expect to see it a competition around the world. I guess there will always be a tendency where some events are more popular in some parts of the world, and therefor make it easier to compete in. I don't have any statistics to back-up this claim.

Edit:
4. Is it an fair event, meaning is it possible to compare results with eachother.

I think 4 is where the real problem is for this sort of event.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

I know this is days late, but I've been gone for a couple days and caught up:

Question: to everyone who enjoys DNFing people who don't know the regulations, are you sure that all competitions where you did this were:
- clearly announced as WCA-official and pursuant to WCA regulations, for those who do not already follow such things in the community?
- in a venue with internet access, or else in a venue with at least one available printed copy of the regulations?

How could the first option be true (pursuant to WCA regulations) if the second is not? Rule 1b2 says the organization team is responsible for making at least one printed or electronic copy of the WCA regulations available.

Media coverage:
The only media coverage I have seen (in the US, anyhow) is when Tyson Mow was on the Anderson Cooper show. Is there anything you have specifically in mind, qqwref? While I can agree that a lot of times people who see me cubing a lot will throw "nerd jokes" at me, it's a completely different issue than media coverage (and I do realize that you can establish the difference between the two as well).

 

[fastcubesolver]

I was wondering a while back if you can use a cube that you have modded for yourself, is that already a rule?

 

[RyanReese09]

You can use a cube modded by yourself, almost everyone does.

 

[Pendragon]

1) I dream that they will add the 2x2x2 BLD: it will be a lot quicker than the big cubes blind, there will be less DNFs and i think that more people will do it.
2) I support team blind: i know a lot of peoplebecome official again, i think it's impossible to take advantage from them, like no-stickers cubes.... <_< (since some months i can't use my transparent maru 4x4...! )

 

[qqwref]

How could the first option be true (pursuant to WCA regulations) if the second is not? Rule 1b2 says the organization team is responsible for making at least one printed or electronic copy of the WCA regulations available.

Well, I'm not sure rule 1b2 is always followed. I've been to a whole bunch of competitions with no printed copy available and no in-room computers, and I doubt they all had free internet. (But even if they don't, what if someone doesn't have any wireless internet-capable devices with them?) I'm not really worried for the top cubers, but rather for people who ask "wait, we have to abide by the WCA regulations, what exactly are they?" and can't get a precise enough answer.

Is there anything you have specifically in mind, qqwref?

Nope, I'm just talking from my general feel of the thing. I haven't been in the news for cubing, but I've seen a lot of short interviews and segments.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

I'm not really worried for the top cubers, but rather for people who ask "wait, we have to abide by the WCA regulations, what exactly are they?" and can't get a precise enough answer.

I completely agree, but I think the fact that the rule may not be always followed is somewhat of a problem. It's not like it's hard to keep a copy with that. At the very least I'd suspect the delegate has a copy with them. I always have questions about the rules at the worst of times, so I usually benefit from a rule such as that.

 

[DavidWoner]

I don't think I have ever had a problem with 1b2 not being followed at any competition I have been to.

 

[Bryan]

I don't think I have ever had a problem with 1b2 not being followed at any competition I have been to.

Honestly, I don't know if anyone's ever asked me for regulations. Mostly it's newbies who want the general rules, but no one who wants to analyze the wording. I'll sometimes take it out and reference it and show it to the competitor.

 

[qqwref]

Well, even if 1b2 is followed and people don't ask to see the regulations, I still think it would be helpful to everyone to make them even more visible. If I help organize a competition again I think I'll try to put up a copy of the regulations on a wall or table for easy viewing.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

I certainly agree with that, qq.

 

[AvGalen]

Add 2x2x2 blind, but make it 3/5 not best.

- Yes, the single would be on a lucky solve, but the same is true for the current 2x2x2 single and still it is held by the best and not some random person that got lucky.

- Only the best of the best could succesfully speedblind it 4 out of 5 times and they would deserve the WR for that in my book

- It would introduce more beginners into blindfolded solving

- It would get the better solvers to focus on not DNF-ing so often

For everyone that thinks Magic and Master Magic are basically the same thing, I would like to ask why! Magic is solved in the air, Master Magic on the table by most people and none of the moves are the same. I think these events should have never existed, but now that we have them we should keep them

 

[Zarxrax]

I like the idea of 2x2x2 blind, because 3x3x3 blind is a bit too intimidating for me.
But, couldn't really good solvers just end up using their normal speedsolving method? So would it really even differ from normal 2x2x2 event at high levels?

 

[~Phoenix Death~]

2x2 BLD. Everything else is made BLD, why not 2x2?

 

[oprah62]

Everything else is made BLD

Lol.

 

[Zane_C]

Add 2x2x2 blind, but make it 3/5 not best.

If 2x2 BLD was to ever become official, I agree with this.

 

[qqwref]

- Yes, the single would be on a lucky solve, but the same is true for the current 2x2x2 single and still it is held by the best and not some random person that got lucky

I'm not just concerned about the WR, this would also affect the overall ranking and every regional record. It's silly to have people who normally get 7 seconds get a 3 second solve, but it's ludicrous to have people who normally get 50 seconds get a 10 second solve.

If 2BLD is ever official I agree it should be an average, but the fact that there must be a single ranking is a huge detriment to the idea.

 

[TMOY]

I like the idea of 2x2x2 blind, because 3x3x3 blind is a bit too intimidating for me.
But, couldn't really good solvers just end up using their normal speedsolving method? So would it really even differ from normal 2x2x2 event at high levels?

Yes and it's the main reason why it should IMHO never been made official. A fast 2^3 speedsolver would be able to win the 2BLD event without even needing to have a clue about how BLD actually works in general. This would not be a real BLD event but a relay 2^3 - putting your blindfold on, which is just silly.

 

[Benyó]

So, i finally had time for this.

Events
I accept, everyone has a favourite event and wants to compete in it more times, but there probably won't be any changes in the list of the events until the whole community claims to remove or add an event (like 6x6 and 7x7). BigBLDs are speedsolving events too, memory is a very important thing, but don't forget you still have to solve the cube (good example for this is István's slow execution, his memo is world class, but he solves the cube very slow, which makes his times 'just good'). 2x2BLD is a stupid idea, because luck counts more than skill, and the same method would be used as in the 2x2 speedsolve.
But why would you like to remove events? Just organise a competition and don't hold it.

+2 penalty
I think +2 is an acceptable rule. There are other sports too, where the almost finished competitors counts as finishers (like in F1 the racers who have done the x% of the race are finishers). And it didn't become +2 because the WCA Board was in that mood, on face off is +2 because everybody is able to turn one on the cube (or magic) in 2 seconds!

Starting the timer
A4b) The competitor must place his hands flat on the elevated sensor area of the Stackmat, with his fingers touching the sensors and with palms down.
We had some arguments because of this rule last year (i heard Brúnó got a penalty for this or Max's 8.05 was questioned too). I think competitors should be allowed to start the solve the same position as they finish it, until their hands are flat and do not touch the cube. There's no advantages or disadvantages of the two styles, but now every third cuber could be punished because of this rule.

+2s in multiBLD
Please clarify the rule of +2s in multiBLD. What happens if there is one or more +2, and when does the solve end (like 6 cubes with one +2 it ends at 59:58, or the time will be 1:00:02?).

Averages
There are several cases, where the rounding of the averages caused wrongful order like:
-the 3x3 final of the TCA Championship, where Peerawich Hiranpaphakorn's average was better than Piti Pichedpan's, but Piti had a better single so he won
-Patrick Jameson was the first who had a sub0.9 magic average. His time was 0.8966666, it was a WR (0.90). And Tang Yiu Chun held the WR too with a 0.9033333 average. Is it the same?
-of course there are a lot more cases
My idea is if some competitors have the same minutes, seconds and first two hundredth of their average than just count one more digit of the averages (0, 3, or 7) instead of making the order based on their singles.
And no, the answer is not 'just solve the cube a bit faster' which i have heard once.

I hope you will find my ideas helpful and i could help to make the WCA regulations a bit more clear.

 

[masterofthebass]

I think rounding is rounding. If the result is displayed with 2 decimal places of accuracy, I don't think you can rank it by anything but that. It stinks that some averages are .001 from being better than another, but thats the nature of speed. They weren't quite fast enough for it to count as a different result.